Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 38
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)
saying you know foreign policy, here is another bit of evidence that it is run from the white house. now the president has the perfect right to overrule. >> yes. >> he is is the can kmnd-- commander in chief and some of the best decisions a man named elliott cone write a book on this, some of the best presidential decisions have been overruled. so within that perfect right he is, nonetheless the concentration of power in the white house across a whole range of spheres is i think a little troubling. and seconds's very hard to believe that there wasn't any politics in this domestic politics, i mean. now it could be arming the rebels was ineffective but if you have this broad sweep of people saying we should arm the rebels and the white house says no, it's hard to believe since it was so politically convenient not-- that it wasn't a mistake. and now the wrong rebels are in -- >> politics does have a role sometimes. >> the president did, in fact, overrule his advisors, including the vice president, including the secretary of defense gates, on going after osama bin laden. and elise ened to jo
? >> ultimately the key decision makers in american foreign policy are the same people. which is the president and its key advisors on the national security council. and the issue is not whether or not the advocates in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go ove
to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so they're going to stick with whatever obama wants. it really is up to the president to find a way grace
. a reporter for foreign policy said it looks like the iranian dumped some rudimentary flight controls and an ejection sheet into a shell molded into what they thought were stealthy angles. a defense analyst looks like it might make noise and vibrate if you put a quarter in it. president ahmadinejad said it carries a message of peace, friendship, and brotherhood. our military achievements, he said, do not pose a threat to anyone. seems like in this particular case, it doesn't pose a threat to anyone which leads us to our next story about military achievements that do indeed pose a threat. there is word tonight that the united states facing drastic defense cuts could be falling behind some of its potential enemies. national security correspondent injurjennifer griffin looks at t prospect. >> reporter: for the first time in two years, the pentagon said it can't afford to keep two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf. the u.s.s. truman would have left today from norfolk, virginia. defense secretary leon panetta blamed the cut back on is he quest ration saying if congress can't rewrite th
. they have huge questions or senator hagel and his positions on how he would handle foreign policy, particularly with opposing sanctions on iran and north korea and israel. with that said, it was the secretary of defense secretary of, they did not do enough. so i think that there's these questions that need to be answered. as we know, it's been fox news covering this issue, ignored by the mainstream media. this is a moment in time we've loved an -- lost and embassador and several americans. >> one phone call, 5:00. >> one phone call. >> the white house would say the president was briefed by advisors. you served the president, george w. bush. >> that's right. when dealing with an attack, when american lives are in harm's way, we know that becomes quicklily a high priority for the president. if we know -- we know there's an attack going under way. >> what should he have done? >> i really think you have to step aside from being so focused on the election at that moment in time and make this one of your top priorities. >> should he have been back in the oval office behind the desk? >>
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> ana, the viewers may not know the history between hagel and mccain. they were close friends in 2000. not so in 2008 when it was clear that hagel's wife was supporting obama and not mccain. was that personal? >> i don't think so at all. anybody who ever saw mccain grill donald rumsfield knows that this is john mccain. this is his job. they are there to advise and consent, not to rubber stamp. if they are not going to get the scrutiny and tough questions now, then when? >> why was he so much tougher on chuck hagel than john kerry? >> because there are so many inconsistenci
in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide american foreign policy in perpetuity because there will always, i guarantee you, thomas, somewhere in the world be someone somewhere who is plotting to do something terrible to the united states, always. that is going to be absolutely the case. and if that is all it takes for us to be in a state of war, we will be in a state of war forever. >> isn't that the new ghormal of what we've evolved to in a country where we have been in a perpetual state of war for a dozen years now? >> yes, but i don't think it should be. i don't think the mere presence of somebody plotting to do something terrible to the united states should be the bar that triggers us being in a state of war. you know, england got hit, spain got hit by terrorist associated with al qaeda. that doesn't mean spain is in a permanent state of war. it doesn't mean england is in a permanent state of war. there are nations that have been targeted by truly genuinely mallef lent forces and it doesn't mean they reorder their thinking, their strategy, their legal archite
this video in iran, they put it on youtube. john reid is the national security reporter for foreign policy. he says he analyzed the video, with he thinks it could be legitimate. do you think this is legitimate footage, because, obviously, this comes -- this is related to one of the most sophisticated piece of fighting technology america has. >> yeah, i always take it with a grain of salt. we have to make sure we're going to take a look at it. we'll have our experts analyze it from stem to stern. you know, iran has overinflated many things. they had missiles they said would go 1,200 kilometers. they went 800 kilometers. they had missile tests they said were successful that we know were not successful. so i'm a little bit skeptical that what they claim is true. could it be true? clearly. i think we have some more forensic work to do to absolutely verify, in fact, if this is footage from what they claim is the downed drone. >> and quickly, before we go, martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs was testifying today about what happened in benghazi. you've defended the use of drones and kill
't have a foreign policy that is delivered by leak to the american press. it's dangerous. we know it has cost us sources. we know it cost us operations. we know it put in jeopardy, at least a part of the time members of our special forces units that may have been involved in those raids. we had to protect their families. so it is really, really important that they get the notion that yes, foreign policy is hard but you have to sell it in a way that does not disclose classified information. and that's been concerning it me. i hope that they have gotten that message. i think today we'll hear a lot about that when the senate does their questioning of mr. brennan. jenna: congressman, thank you very much for the time today. i know it is a busy one as always for you in capitol hill. we always appreciate you joining us, thank you. >> thanks, jenna. jon: fascinating topics on the front burner today. one lawmaker calls senator marco rubio of florida a lynchpin in getting immigration reform done. we're going to take a look why that may be the case coming up. jenna: now a fox news weather alert for
hope you all look at the article written january 17 in "foreign policy" magazine about aegis and the problems that have surfaced about them. now i have talked to patrick kennedy about this and his staff has come over and briefed my staff that they believe aegis is doing just fine. . >> i won't go into the i.g. report on the background checks. but the people that are at kabul now, it is $100 million a year we are paying them. i can't believe we can't use the marines in these situations. someone has got to do a cost benefit analysis. can you imagine the amount of money we have spent fooling around with these contractors that weren't getting the job done? can you imagine the time we have spent on this and the money that has been spent? i would like for you, general, to talk about the cost benefit of putting marines in our embassies and why in the world this is hard for us to get our arms around and where is the analysis that shows us we are saving any money. >> just to react briefly to what would be necessarily a much longer conversation. the marines are not -- that's not their
. but the person i blame the most for benghazi is president obama. it's his foreign policy strategy that aloud this conflict to become a death trap. he's the one to share the blame above all others. martha: senator mccain poibtsd out the last two seals were killed in the final hour of a 7-hour siege. it makes the argument you can't respond to the second 911 call and they can't get there in time a little more complicated, doesn't it? >> it it's a system failure. when general dempsey says the d.o.d. responded appropriately. i think not. not one d.o.d. asset reached these people for over 7 hours. i just find it dumbfounding to believe that we could not provide any military assistance on 9/11 of all days. and given the history of the threat. reports out of libya and the terror situation. this is a system failure. no one is pressing the president. the mainstream media is giving the obama administration a pass and that needs to stop. martha: we'll hear from the cia, the man who is expected to be the head of the cia, downbrennan, there is so much focus on the drone issue. i want to get your thoughts
that you look up the article that was written on gentry 17th in the foreign policy magazine about egis at the kabul industry and the problems that have already surfaced about them. now i have talked to patrick kennedy about this and his staff has come over and briefed by staff that they believe it is doing just fine. the end of this i have to tell you the umbrella contract for the high level security in the sea is a 10 billion-dollar contract over five years and i won't go into the report of the background check but it's $100 -- $100 million a year. i can't believe we can't use the marines in these situations. somebody has got to do cost-benefit analysis. all that i told you. can you imagine in the money that we spent fooling around with these contractors the were not getting the job done can you imagine the time we spend and the money that has been spent? i would like for you to talk about the cost benefits of putting marines on the embassy's when we are in contingencies and why this is so hard to get our arms around and how are we saving any money? >> welcome a senator, just to react
to be terrorists on foreign soil can be essentially disintegrated by drones. your thought about this? >> my thought is two thoughts. one, because of this administration's policy, if you find a terrorist who is an american citizen of the united states then that person has to be read his or her miranda rights. if that same person is overseas, then after a certain process, you can kill them. that doesn't -- that doesn't compute, but my other thought is that should we have the cia, central intelligence agency, being the uones carryin out the drone strikes or should it be a military mission. if it were, there'd be much greater oversight by congress, but instead we're turning an intelligence agency into the prime instruments or one of the prime instruments waging the war on terrorism and radical extremism. it seems we've gotten things out of balance here. >> greta: senator, thank you, sir. >> thanks for having me on. senator mccain has more about the full controversy, you can see it on gretawire.com. and immigration law officemax is celebrating our new collaboration with go daddy! with an online package
of american citizens, there's no other term, we can't assassinate foreign leaders because these are the same people that complained bitterly and eviscerated george w. bush. my conclusion, all of these democrats not only owe bush a policy, but politicized war. i'm not against drone strikes, but we've got to have a criteria. i'm not against enhanced interrogation and they're the ones inconsistent. your reaction. >> you're exactly right if the fifth amendment due process clause means anything, it ought to mean before the u.s. government can snuff out the life of an american citizen there ought to be some definable standard against which that citizen is judged and that citizen will be determined to be an imminent threat against the u.s. government. but this is a standardless determination as it's been laid out by this memorandum and leaked by the department of justice and it's very troubling, to add insult to injury to that, sean, we have a situation in which the department of justice won't give us full access to their full legal analysis. so we don't really know what the standard is, but what l
to take incomplete and contradictory information and advise the senior most policy makers about government about a foreign, political, and economic developments, or an operations officer, whose job it is to find and obtain those elusive secrets to provide advance warning and strategic surprise, impending violence, cyber attacks and a persistent threats such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation, or a technical expert, who finds nuggets of intelligence in tremendous volumes of data, provides secure data collection and systems and encountered the latest threats to our nation, or a support officer whose responsibility is to provide analysis and when directed by the president, conducting covert action and carried out with the provision speed, skill, and efficiency. and from sub-saharan africa to central and south america to the vast expanses of asia and the great cities of europe and all countries in between, cia officers were there, sometimes in force and sometimes virtually standing alone. and for those 25 years, it was a great honor for me to be a cia officer, as i knew
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)